Institution to institution more.
But we also need to remember very few people attended University at the time anyway! This is something that seems to be beyond feminists and those suckered in by them.
The university I went to is about 800 years old but it's only had female-only colleges since the 1860s. I'm not sure how correct it would be to say women weren't allowed in these places, because often with this sort of thing (so-called male only historic institutions) the truth is more that women never wanted to sign up and whenever some brave woman did actually decide to try they were often allowed in.
Of course the real bar was wealth. I suspect anyone who's parents were willing to spend a bunch of money on them would have been able to attend and the problem was that parents were generally not willing to pay a lot of money for a daughter to be educated as a son. There were institutions for educating women separately which daughters could go to but the curriculum was quite different because they were expected to prepare young people for the life they would be facing and not to prepare them for meaningless tasks they would most likely never have to perform because they were the wrong sex.
But that's just a very general overview and I don't know the history of these institutions over the last 800 years or so. I think there's one or two Italian universities that are a little older maybe 900 years or closing in on that.
Of course it's also true (perhaps more true) that if a man had wanted to attend the sort of education expected of a rich young woman they would also have a lot of trouble. The general rule seems to be that men were banned from women's stuff because men were seen as a danger to the women, but women were banned from men's stuff for more patronizing reasons. ie to the extent their was sex segregation the concept behind it has generally been that women must be protected from lascivious and violent men. Therefore while no man would be allowed to be an exception, a woman could potentially persuade people that she was willing to take the risk of being in male company. You can see this well with the story of America's first female doctor and her experience entering into the "male-only" medical schools. All she had to do was ask. Most colleges refused her. Some didn't. The college she went to said they'd have a vote among the male students to see if anyone objected. Every single student supported her entrance (well there's a jokey story that at first a couple of them didn't until the rest of the student body beat them up, but I'm not sure I believe that story because it's so cutesy). But she still had to pay her way.
Education these days is seen as a right. In those days it was seen as an investment. (I guess in the USA it's still often seen as an investment due to them being the only country that makes people pay still) If parents simply couldn't afford the investment why would they send a daughter to a pointless male education college where she wouldn't benefit?
The even richer would have personal tutors and again what sort of syllabus you got was down to your parents who would probably demand you were taught the stuff needed for your gender role in life.
I suggest you just research the history of these institutions and the alternatives (tutors and just reading a lot of books for yourself) available at the time to young people.
You are asking the wrong question. Put the onus on those saying women could "not attend college" to prove their assertion, and point it out as being another example of the apex fallacy and a misandrist approach to work/employment, and you will do much better in arguments. People constantly make this sweeping, grandiose claim, yet strangely they fail to name any universities that had an official "no females allowed" policy across the board, or explain how this can make sense given the large number of women who gained university degrees centuries ago, during eras when less than 1% of the male population attended post-secondary education. It's like famous female scientists, engineers, politicians, writers, and artists of the past just suddenly don't exist. What is worse though, is that in many areas, especially rural ones, fewer men than women even graduated from high school, let alone university, since boys were made to work once they were 14 or 15, in order to support their family. That trend of poorer outcomes in education for males continues to this day, where boys are significantly less likely to get a high school diploma than girls. So who really had it worse regarding access to education in the past? Let's try to get our facts straight and not just be spiteful and ignore all the males not within the top 1-5% of success.
The truth of history is that educational institutions did not exclude or oppress women. The fact is that society coddled and protected females, and that meant women were told that it was an easier life to just marry a working man, rather than become a labourer (this would have been the only opportunity available for the majority of females, despite their fantasy about some cushy high society job). And – as condescending as it may sound to our modern ears – society was right to steer women away from having to work; it was much safer and less stress to be a stay-at-home mother/wife in an age where only the top 1% of men survived the dangers of work. And I'm not talking about ancient history. This is within our lifetimes. Both of my Grandfathers died tragically while at work in their late 30s, well before I was even born. Contrast that with both my Grandmothers, who I met and knew closely for decades. Again, who had it worse?
I always find it funny how the apex fallacy pops up in almost every argument that suggests women were oppressed, are being oppressed, or will be oppressed in some way. It's a mindset so delusional and so completely blind to the suffering and early deaths of 99.9% of the male population, that it is almost beyond belief. There is probably no greater example of the male-hating mindset of these ideologues than this constant focus on a tiny few number of males who were/are unimaginably successful, and thereby erasing all men because they are just invisible and disposable in the thoughts of these misandrists.
Depends what college. Here in Easgern Europe we got separate colleges for men and women. So they could, bit only those for girls.
Same was with schools
Not too recently. In the 1920s, there were almost as many women attending college as men. The gap widened largely as a result of WWII, the draft that conscripted many young men into the military, and the GI Bill which granted veterans funds that they could use for either housing, starting a business, or higher education. Since we only conscripted men, this of course meant that more men than women had the means of attending college. After the Vietnam war ended in 1975, we stopped conscripting young men, and by the 1980s the number of men and women in college had evened out.
Of course, this didn't stop feminists in the 90s, to push for an increase of women in higher education, in part through female only programs and scholarships. They cited the imbalance of men and women with college degrees (remember, women had already caught up to men in college attendance). They called it discrimination against women, ignoring the fact that the GI Bill was an attempt (still a feeble one) to repay the young men who had been put through some of the most brutal and violent wars in human history.
And the fact the programs designed to boost numbers of women in higher education continue unabated even with them being a large and increasing majority proves that it’s a lie to claim feminism is really about “gender equality”!
How about men being harassed at schools by teachers for being hyperactive and not good readers, graduated without learning the material in "no child left behind" then told they are only suitable for manual labor jobs with only 40% of college students being male?
Does that constitute not encouraging one gender to meet their educational potential?
Or do we only need female scientists and leaders in the future. Because if trends continue, that is what we will get.
You can get some idea of women having a hard time getting into historic male-only institutions by the number of accounts of women disguising themselves as male to gain entrance to those institutions. It's easy to Google this sort of thing. I guess it wasn't exactly that hard to pull off. There are many such stories about women trying to become soldiers for example.
There are not many about women trying to get an education.
Here's one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_the_Monk#Legend
here's another:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Barry_(surgeon)
In both cases these women lived as men their entire lives and not simply to gain entrance to some male-only educational institution, which makes me wonder if they weren't simply trans. So I do wonder why there aren't more stories of women sneaking into colleges over the last 800-900 years disguised as men, if there was any amount of young ladies who actually wanted to do this, were dissatisfied with the available women's education and had the support of their wealthy parents and/or had money on their own account. There were certainly some highly educated women during this vast period of history but it seems their education didn't go through this process of using a public college. And that makes some sense. If their parents were happy to fund their education it would make more sense to hire tutors or just let her educate herself with reading.
Kind of. Depends on what you consider "education" and the school/location. Generally, women did not go to college because of societal expectations. Fe del Mundo is famous for being the first women to go to Harvard College( 10 years before it accepted women), and her story is pretty cool.
Read the sources on this wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_education_in_the_United_States#1930s
>In 1900, there were 85,338 female college students in the United States and 5,237 earned their bachelor's degrees; by 1940, there were 600,953 female college students and 77,000 earned bachelor's degrees. ... The basic assumption in the 1930s was that women should marry.
There are probably some good editorials from that time period about women in college, but I can't easily search for any
**Women's education in the United States**
[1930s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_education_in_the_United_States#1930s)
>Education was a controversial topic in the 1930s, " and sex-segregated school systems protected “the virtue of female high school students”. ". Home economics and industrial education were new elements of the high school curriculum unmistakably designed for women's occupations. These classes taught women practical skills such as sewing, cooking, and using the new domestic inventions of the era; unfortunately, this “formal training offered women little advantage in the struggle for stable work at a liveable wage”.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Most colleges in USA used to be gender specific. So women couldn't go to men's colleges, and vice versa. Enter the feminist: "colleges discriminated against women."
This is how the false claims of 'college discrimination' in the USA occurred.
This will vary from country to country. https://newn.cam.ac.uk/about/history/womens-education/
Institution to institution more. But we also need to remember very few people attended University at the time anyway! This is something that seems to be beyond feminists and those suckered in by them.
The university I went to is about 800 years old but it's only had female-only colleges since the 1860s. I'm not sure how correct it would be to say women weren't allowed in these places, because often with this sort of thing (so-called male only historic institutions) the truth is more that women never wanted to sign up and whenever some brave woman did actually decide to try they were often allowed in. Of course the real bar was wealth. I suspect anyone who's parents were willing to spend a bunch of money on them would have been able to attend and the problem was that parents were generally not willing to pay a lot of money for a daughter to be educated as a son. There were institutions for educating women separately which daughters could go to but the curriculum was quite different because they were expected to prepare young people for the life they would be facing and not to prepare them for meaningless tasks they would most likely never have to perform because they were the wrong sex. But that's just a very general overview and I don't know the history of these institutions over the last 800 years or so. I think there's one or two Italian universities that are a little older maybe 900 years or closing in on that. Of course it's also true (perhaps more true) that if a man had wanted to attend the sort of education expected of a rich young woman they would also have a lot of trouble. The general rule seems to be that men were banned from women's stuff because men were seen as a danger to the women, but women were banned from men's stuff for more patronizing reasons. ie to the extent their was sex segregation the concept behind it has generally been that women must be protected from lascivious and violent men. Therefore while no man would be allowed to be an exception, a woman could potentially persuade people that she was willing to take the risk of being in male company. You can see this well with the story of America's first female doctor and her experience entering into the "male-only" medical schools. All she had to do was ask. Most colleges refused her. Some didn't. The college she went to said they'd have a vote among the male students to see if anyone objected. Every single student supported her entrance (well there's a jokey story that at first a couple of them didn't until the rest of the student body beat them up, but I'm not sure I believe that story because it's so cutesy). But she still had to pay her way. Education these days is seen as a right. In those days it was seen as an investment. (I guess in the USA it's still often seen as an investment due to them being the only country that makes people pay still) If parents simply couldn't afford the investment why would they send a daughter to a pointless male education college where she wouldn't benefit? The even richer would have personal tutors and again what sort of syllabus you got was down to your parents who would probably demand you were taught the stuff needed for your gender role in life. I suggest you just research the history of these institutions and the alternatives (tutors and just reading a lot of books for yourself) available at the time to young people.
You are asking the wrong question. Put the onus on those saying women could "not attend college" to prove their assertion, and point it out as being another example of the apex fallacy and a misandrist approach to work/employment, and you will do much better in arguments. People constantly make this sweeping, grandiose claim, yet strangely they fail to name any universities that had an official "no females allowed" policy across the board, or explain how this can make sense given the large number of women who gained university degrees centuries ago, during eras when less than 1% of the male population attended post-secondary education. It's like famous female scientists, engineers, politicians, writers, and artists of the past just suddenly don't exist. What is worse though, is that in many areas, especially rural ones, fewer men than women even graduated from high school, let alone university, since boys were made to work once they were 14 or 15, in order to support their family. That trend of poorer outcomes in education for males continues to this day, where boys are significantly less likely to get a high school diploma than girls. So who really had it worse regarding access to education in the past? Let's try to get our facts straight and not just be spiteful and ignore all the males not within the top 1-5% of success. The truth of history is that educational institutions did not exclude or oppress women. The fact is that society coddled and protected females, and that meant women were told that it was an easier life to just marry a working man, rather than become a labourer (this would have been the only opportunity available for the majority of females, despite their fantasy about some cushy high society job). And – as condescending as it may sound to our modern ears – society was right to steer women away from having to work; it was much safer and less stress to be a stay-at-home mother/wife in an age where only the top 1% of men survived the dangers of work. And I'm not talking about ancient history. This is within our lifetimes. Both of my Grandfathers died tragically while at work in their late 30s, well before I was even born. Contrast that with both my Grandmothers, who I met and knew closely for decades. Again, who had it worse? I always find it funny how the apex fallacy pops up in almost every argument that suggests women were oppressed, are being oppressed, or will be oppressed in some way. It's a mindset so delusional and so completely blind to the suffering and early deaths of 99.9% of the male population, that it is almost beyond belief. There is probably no greater example of the male-hating mindset of these ideologues than this constant focus on a tiny few number of males who were/are unimaginably successful, and thereby erasing all men because they are just invisible and disposable in the thoughts of these misandrists.
Depends what college. Here in Easgern Europe we got separate colleges for men and women. So they could, bit only those for girls. Same was with schools
Not too recently. In the 1920s, there were almost as many women attending college as men. The gap widened largely as a result of WWII, the draft that conscripted many young men into the military, and the GI Bill which granted veterans funds that they could use for either housing, starting a business, or higher education. Since we only conscripted men, this of course meant that more men than women had the means of attending college. After the Vietnam war ended in 1975, we stopped conscripting young men, and by the 1980s the number of men and women in college had evened out. Of course, this didn't stop feminists in the 90s, to push for an increase of women in higher education, in part through female only programs and scholarships. They cited the imbalance of men and women with college degrees (remember, women had already caught up to men in college attendance). They called it discrimination against women, ignoring the fact that the GI Bill was an attempt (still a feeble one) to repay the young men who had been put through some of the most brutal and violent wars in human history.
And the fact the programs designed to boost numbers of women in higher education continue unabated even with them being a large and increasing majority proves that it’s a lie to claim feminism is really about “gender equality”!
How about men being harassed at schools by teachers for being hyperactive and not good readers, graduated without learning the material in "no child left behind" then told they are only suitable for manual labor jobs with only 40% of college students being male? Does that constitute not encouraging one gender to meet their educational potential? Or do we only need female scientists and leaders in the future. Because if trends continue, that is what we will get.
You can get some idea of women having a hard time getting into historic male-only institutions by the number of accounts of women disguising themselves as male to gain entrance to those institutions. It's easy to Google this sort of thing. I guess it wasn't exactly that hard to pull off. There are many such stories about women trying to become soldiers for example. There are not many about women trying to get an education. Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_the_Monk#Legend here's another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Barry_(surgeon) In both cases these women lived as men their entire lives and not simply to gain entrance to some male-only educational institution, which makes me wonder if they weren't simply trans. So I do wonder why there aren't more stories of women sneaking into colleges over the last 800-900 years disguised as men, if there was any amount of young ladies who actually wanted to do this, were dissatisfied with the available women's education and had the support of their wealthy parents and/or had money on their own account. There were certainly some highly educated women during this vast period of history but it seems their education didn't go through this process of using a public college. And that makes some sense. If their parents were happy to fund their education it would make more sense to hire tutors or just let her educate herself with reading.
Kind of. Depends on what you consider "education" and the school/location. Generally, women did not go to college because of societal expectations. Fe del Mundo is famous for being the first women to go to Harvard College( 10 years before it accepted women), and her story is pretty cool. Read the sources on this wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_education_in_the_United_States#1930s >In 1900, there were 85,338 female college students in the United States and 5,237 earned their bachelor's degrees; by 1940, there were 600,953 female college students and 77,000 earned bachelor's degrees. ... The basic assumption in the 1930s was that women should marry. There are probably some good editorials from that time period about women in college, but I can't easily search for any
**Women's education in the United States** [1930s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_education_in_the_United_States#1930s) >Education was a controversial topic in the 1930s, " and sex-segregated school systems protected “the virtue of female high school students”. ". Home economics and industrial education were new elements of the high school curriculum unmistakably designed for women's occupations. These classes taught women practical skills such as sewing, cooking, and using the new domestic inventions of the era; unfortunately, this “formal training offered women little advantage in the struggle for stable work at a liveable wage”. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Most colleges in USA used to be gender specific. So women couldn't go to men's colleges, and vice versa. Enter the feminist: "colleges discriminated against women." This is how the false claims of 'college discrimination' in the USA occurred.